JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under S. 432 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order, dated 27th November, 1989 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas who dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas dated 11th October, 1989 refusing to release the truck bearing registration No. DIG 6297 on supurdginama to him. 2. Brief facts leading to this petition are that one Nasru Khan had lodged a report at police station Khairthal District Alwar on 30-5-89 alleging that he is the owner of Truck Operators Association, Alwar. On 15th May, 1989 Jaisingh alias Om Prakash driver of the truck bearing No. DIG 6297 approached him and asked him to load the truck 189 bags of mustard were loaded for being transported to Dehradun. It was alleged that the goods did not reach Dehradun and the Driver embazzled the goods in the way. Case for offence under S. 406 and 420 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. The aforesaid Truck No. DIG 6297 was seized. The petitioner who was guarantor as well as power of Attorney holder of Financer moved an application for delivery of the truck on supurdaginama. It is pertinent to mention here that Jaisingh one of the owners along with Satvir Singh had also applied for supurdaginama of the said truck, but for reasons best known he did not press the application and got it dismissed was not pressed. The petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that if the track is delivered to him then it will be difficult to apprehend the accused Satvir Singh. It is against this order of rejection, having failed to get any relief from the revisional court, the petitioner has approached this court. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle is lying at the police station to nobody's care ever since the date of its seizure which is 7th June, 1989. It is submitted that financers are entitled to the custody of the truck in view of the fact that since Satvir and Jaisingh had not paid instalments towards it and had committed breach of agreement. It is submitted that the only amount of Rs. 24,000/- had been credited to the account out of the hire-purchase price of Rs. 2,79,100/-. It is submitted that financers are entitled to the custody of the truck in view of the fact that since Satvir and Jaisingh had not paid instalments towards it and had committed breach of agreement. It is submitted that the only amount of Rs. 24,000/- had been credited to the account out of the hire-purchase price of Rs. 2,79,100/-. It is submitted huge amount is outstanding against Satvir Singh and Jaisingh who have not cared to pay the outstanding amount. It is submitted that Balvir Singh has been given special power of attorney by the financer which has been placed on the record. The only reason on which the custody of the track has been refused by the trial court was that it would not be possible to appended Satvir Singh if the truck is given on supurdaginama. 4. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner submits that he being a registered owner of the truck he should be given the custody of the truck. He could not however, assign the reason as to why he got his application dismissed as not pressed which clearly shows that he was not interested in taking the delivery possibly for the reason that he had no amount to pay to the financer. 5. I have given my ernest consideration to the rival contentions and have perused the record. 6. The trial court while passing the order refused to deliver the truck to Balvir Singh for two reasons. One is that according to him his claim could not be better than the claim of the original owner and secondly Satvir Singh would not be arrested in case the vehicle is given. In my opinion the reasons assigned are not sound. In the instant case before the trial court when an application was filed by Balvir Singh the agreement with special power of attorney was also placed on the record and in fact it was the financer who was claiming the property through the special power of attorney holder Balvir Singh as such his position was more better other than the guarantor. It was on his filing the application and the document that Jaisingh has not pressed his application Satvir Singh was not available. In these circumstances it was not proper to keep the truck remaining idle in the police station which would be rusted and wasted. It was on his filing the application and the document that Jaisingh has not pressed his application Satvir Singh was not available. In these circumstances it was not proper to keep the truck remaining idle in the police station which would be rusted and wasted. It is matter of common knowledge that when the vehicles are left lying at the police station to nobody's care they are virtually reduced to scrape with the passage of time that it is not only personal loss to the parties but it is a national loss. In these circumstances I am persuaded to accept this application and direct that the truck No. DIG 6297 shall be delivered on Supurdaginama to Balvir Singh on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- for production of the same before the trial court as and when required. It is made clear that this order shall not prejudice the trial court while passing an order for delivery of the said truck at the time of final disposal of the case. One of the condition of the bond will be that Balvir Singh shall maintain complete account of the receipt of the amount which he gets by plying the vehicle.Application accepted. *******